State ex rel. Manson v. Morris
Decision Date | 16 June 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 92-2179,92-2179 |
Citation | 613 N.E.2d 232,66 Ohio St.3d 440 |
Parties | The STATE ex rel. MANSON v. MORRIS, Warden, et al. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
David A. Manson, pro se.
Lee I. Fisher, Atty. Gen., and Joseph Mancini, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
For the following reasons we grant respondents' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Manson's request for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Manson argues that CCI's visiting office and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction denied him Addy's visitation because she was a former employee of the department and that the denial was unconstitutional.
Three requirements must be met to establish a right to a writ of mandamus: that relator have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that respondent have a clear legal duty to perform the acts, and that relator have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 29, 6 OBR 50, 51, 451 N.E.2d 225, 226.
Manson does not meet the first requirement because he does not have a constitutional right to receive certain visitors. As the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated: "Prison inmates have no absolute constitutional right to visitation." Bellamy v. Bradley (C.A.6, 1984), 729 F.2d 416, 420, certiorari denied (1984), 469 U.S. 845, 105 S.Ct. 156, 83 L.Ed.2d 93.
In Kentucky Dept. of Corr. v. Thompson (1989), 490 U.S. 454, 460-461, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 1908-1909, 104 L.Ed.2d 506, 515, the United States Supreme Court stated:
In addition, Manson, as an Ohio inmate, does not have a state-protected liberty interest in receiving certain visitors. The Thompson court found that in order for prison regulations to create for an inmate a protected liberty interest in receiving certain visitors, the relevant regulations must contain " 'explicitly mandatory language,' i.e., specific directives to the decisionmaker that if the regulations' substantive predicates are present, a particular outcome must follow * * *." Id., 490 U.S. at 463, 109 S.Ct. at 1910, 104 L.Ed.2d at 516. Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-15, which governs prison visitation in Ohio, is not sufficiently mandatory to create for Manson a protected liberty interest in receiving certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State Of Ohio Ex Rel. Crumbley v. City Of Cleveland
...has a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief, and that there is no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Man-son v. Morris (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 440, 613 N.E.2d 232, citing State ex rel Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50, 451 N.E.2d 225. Moreover, mandamus is an......
-
State ex rel. Hillyer v. Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
...the acts, and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Manson v. Morris (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 440, 441, 613 N.E.2d 232, 233-234, citing State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 29, 6 OBR 50, 51, 451 N.E.2d 225, 226. The......
-
State Of Ohio v. City Of Cleveland
...Fair Housing Administrator; and (3) there exists no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Manson v. Morris (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 440, 613 N.E.2d 232; State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 451 N.E.2d 225; State ex rel. Westchester Estates......
-
State ex rel. Botkins v. Laws, 92-2144
...legal duty to perform the act requested, and (3) relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Manson v. Morris (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 440, 441, 613 N.E.2d 232, 233-234; State ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc. v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 15 O.O.3d 53, 399 N.E.2d 81, p......